The present invention relates to protective equipment, and, in particular, relates to protective equipment for human teeth.
Mouthguards and related teeth protective equipment have been known since approximately the year 1900. (Scott, J., Burke, F. J. T. and Watts, D. C.; Br Dent J. 1994; 176: 310-314). In general, known mouthguards share characteristic deficiencies in comfort afforded a wearer. (DeYoung, Amy Kay, Robinson, Emerson and Goodwin, William C. JADA, v. 125, August, 1994, pp. 1112-1117. Woodmansey, Karl F. General Dentistry, January-February 1999, pp. 64-69.) Known mouthguards typically degrade or impede a wearer's breathing and/or speech. Moreover, known mouthguards are often subjectively considered detrimental to the appearance of wearers.
One consequence of these characteristic shortcomings is a nearly universal disdain and avoidance of use by those potential wearers who are most likely to benefit from such protective equipment. While those potential wearers may be temporarily compelled to wear such protective equipment when under the supervision of an authority figure, they often discard, lose, hide or otherwise avoid wearing such protective equipment within moments after their supervision is relaxed or terminated. Unfortunately, the dangers remain and too often, teeth are then damaged or lost. (Ibid)
Thus, there remains a need for a mouthguard that is protective, comfortable, does not interfere with breathing, and allows speech by a wearer. Preferrably, such a mouthguard would not render the wearer less attractive. Such a device would eliminate much of the motivation to avoid wearing mouthguards and thereby increase comfort and pleasure while affording wearers a longer period of time during which they are protected from danger. Moreover, if the protective characteristics of such a device, when actually worn, were to exceed the protection afforded by known mouthguards, when actually worn, then a substantial increase in safety would occur. In other words, a substantially safer mouthguard would be relatively more effective in protecting teeth against a given blow and would be worn for a greater proportion of the time when danger is present. A wearer of a substantially safer mouthguard would enjoy a greater level of safety over a longer time frame with greater comfort, unimpeded open-mouth breathing, still able to speak and not become less attractive. Thus, a recognition and appreciation of a variety of significant mouthguard characteristics must be incorporated to develop a substantially safer mouthguard.
Some known mouthguards also claim an ability to improve protection of body structures other than teeth, e.g. the temporomandibular joints and brain. There remains an opportunity and need for a more critical consideration of the protection afforded by these known mouthguards. A better understanding of such protection might allow advances in protection to be considered and incorporated into the earlier mentioned substantially safer mouthguard.
There have been a number of studies and articles in relevant literature that, although not reaching the present invention may warrant review as background in understanding the present invention:
1. DeYoung, Amy Kay, Robinson, Emerson and Goodwin, William C. Journal of the American Dental Association, v. 125, pp. 1112-1117, August, 1994.
2. Gilboe, Dennis B., Centric Relation as the Treatment Position, Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 50:5, pp. 685-689, 1983.
3. Gilboe, Dennis B., Posterior Condylar Displacement: Prosthetic Therapy, Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 49:4, pp. 549-553, 1983.
4. Hickey, Judson C., Morris, Alvin L., Carison, Loren D., Seward, Thomas E., The Relation of Mouth Protectors to Cranial Pressure and Deformation, Journal of the American Dental Association, v. 74, pp. 735-740, March, 1967.
5. Keith, David A., Orden, Adam L., Orofacial Athletic Injuiries and Involvement of the Temporomandibular Joint, Journal of the Massachusetts Dental Society, v. 43: 4, 11-15, 1986.
6. Scott, J, Burke, F. J. T. and Watts, D. C., A Review of Dental Injuries and the Use of Mouthguards in Contact Team Sports; Br Dent J.; 176: 310-314, 1994.
7. Westerman B, Stringfellow P M, Eccleston J A. EVA Mouthguards: How Thick Should They be? Dental Traumatology: 18, 24-27, 2002.
8. Woodmansey, Karl F., Athletic Mouth Guards Prevent Orofacial Injuries: A Review General Dentistry, January-February, pp. 64-69, 1999.
The present invention, disclosed subsequently, addresses these many issues and challenges by applying critical and innovative thinking to the functions and mechanisms through which mouthguards protect a wearer. Additionally, the present invention, disclosed subsequently, includes innovative methods of making and using such mouthguards.